Techdirt. Stories filed under "radiohead"Easily digestible tech news...https://www.techdirt.com/
en-usTechdirt. Stories filed under "radiohead"https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/td-88x31.gifhttps://www.techdirt.com/Mon, 2 Aug 2010 08:54:06 PDTWhy Is The RIAA Sending Takedown Notices Over Music Radiohead Gave Away For Free?Mike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100801/16593410438.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100801/16593410438.shtmlRadiohead "name your own price" experiment for the album In Rainbows. Frankly, I still think that particular experiment gets too much attention, as it wasn't well thought out or organized and was mostly done on a whim. I also thought the band made a mistake in ending the download portion even if many people mistakenly claimed that this was an admission that the project was a failure (the band said from the very beginning this was their plan). And, when the numbers came out, it became clear that the experiment was a huge success.

Since then, the band has also come out as very pro-file sharing and anti-RIAA. For example, the band's manager has said that file sharing should be legal and that it is "a great thing for culture and music." In the meantime, Radiohead's Thom Yorke has pointed out that the record labels have been unable to innovate and has predicted the imminent demise of the major labels. Oh, and most importantly for those who claimed the "free" part of their release was a failure, last summer the band officially released a track for free and distributed it via BitTorrent themselves.

We keep hearing from the RIAA and the IFPI that all they want is for consumers to "respect the artists' wishes" when it comes to how their music gets distributed. So, we have to ask, since Radiohead has made it pretty clear they're perfectly happy with their digital copies being distributed this way, why won't the RIAA and IFPI "respects the artists' wishes" on Radiohead's In Rainbows?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>seems-oddhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100801/16593410438Fri, 19 Feb 2010 01:54:43 PSTDoes 'Radiohead Journalism' Make Sense?Mike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100218/0217428220.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100218/0217428220.shtmlputting up a long form feature story about the pseudonymously named Dolly Freed, who had written a rather successful book as a teenager called Possum Living: How to Live Well Without A Job and (Almost) No Money -- but following the publication, Dolly decided to effectively disappear. Williams tracked her down and wrote a feature article about her, but couldn't find anyone willing to publish it. The NY Times was going to, but backed out when Williams refused to reveal Freed's real name. So, instead, she put the article on her own site and put up a Paypal donation button, hoping to recover her expenses. She calls it "Radiohead journalism" after Radiohead's famed "name your own price" experiment.

Then, with little direct publicity -- beyond mentioning it on Facebook and Twitter -- the story got a bit of attention. Not a ton, mind you, but a few thousand views, which resulted in about 160 people donating a bit over $1,500. Combined with the kill fee from the NY Times for backing out on publishing the feature, her expenses were covered.

There are some interesting things here, but I'm afraid that the catchy name "Radiohead journalism" is not really accurate or a very good way of thinking about this particular experiment. Radiohead had a variety of other income streams, and from the very beginning, the band admitted that the "name your own price" offering for digital files was part of a way to get more attention for the fancy "discbox" tangible version of the album. In other words, Radiohead always had an additional reason to buy, which Williams didn't really have. Her model was more of a "give it away and pray" for donations, which can work in some cases, but isn't really sustainable.

Still, it does show that there are some creative ways (and this is but one of many) to fund longer form journalism -- and, contrary to the opinion of some, if there's real demand for such things, business models will begin to develop. Williams, for her part, seems interested in further experimenting and improving on the model, and I'm hopeful that she'll look at some more involved business models that go beyond a straight donation model.

Not going all the way. Fans love free music and so do people that are not
familiar with an artist's work, but if you're going to give something away then
really give it away. If you don't, you won't get the attention you were hoping for
and might even disappoint some fans instead of connecting with them.

Creating unnecessary mediums instead of utilizing existing ones. While
the Bacardi B-Live Share application looked cool (now offline), it was completely
unnecessary. Instead of creating a digital dashboard with meaningless graphics,
it could have been executed in a much simpler fashion by utilizing existing social
networks or filesharing websites. IF you're going to set up such a thing, then at
least make it interactive, social (in terms of enabling users to interact with each
other) and add value (with videos or a game for instance). You could even use it
to sell other products of the band or artist.

Expecting people to pay for what they can get for free. People might pay,
but most will pick whatever way is most convenient. Usually, this is by remaining
seated at your computer and by avoiding complicated online payment procedures.
Sure, people should use legal ways to buy music, but the reality is that people go
for convenience.

What does work (well)

Giving fans a reason to buy. Instead of expecting people to pay for something
which they can, perhaps more easily, get for free, create added value. This is
what Nine Inch Nails, Mos Def and Danger Mouse and Sparklehorse all did very
well. Instead of expecting people to pay for the music, they all created something
besides the music which people would be more willing to pay for.

Freemium. By offering something for free, one connects with fans and they will
spread the word about you (as long as what you're offering has value). Once
attention has been garnered, and perhaps sympathy has been won, you can
offer a premium product. This is how Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails have been
successful with aforementioned albums. First you give something for free, then
you market your premium; freemium.

Understanding that the package IS the product. This goes for all of the
cases, except for Groove Armada. In the case of Danger Mouse and Sparklehorse
as well as Mos Def, the package was actually the reason to buy the product. In the
case of Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails, they marketed the package as premiums,
perhaps understanding that it's hard to make money if you have to compete with
free, meaning music downloads.

Buzz. By generating buzz, you can turn people just turned on to your product
into fans. These fans can then later be marketed to when trying to sell premium
packages (or subscriptions for example). Even if they don't buy, having them
talking about your brand or product increases the buzz. This works best if they
can give others free samples (free music) to see for themselves how great the
brand or product is.

Co-branding. By co-branding, the two brands can both benefit of each others'
resources and skills. In the case of Groove Armada and Bacardi, the latter benefits
mostly from Groove Armada's image and the ability to promote themselves on all
Groove Armada-related products, this includes live performances. Groove Armada
on the other hand, benefits from the resources Bacardi has, for instance to set
up the website and network for the distribution of the music, as well as their
marketing capacities. Both are connected to different audiences and by working
together, they can promote each other to their respective audiences, perhaps new
ones.

I think this is a fantastic list -- and the results of other experiments we've seen seem to support many of the points on this list as well. The rest of the paper is also worth reading, and I look forward to the final thesis. Of course, two small quibbles: the paper cites me a couple times, including claiming that I coined the term "competing with free." I can't take credit for that, though I have no idea who coined it. I was under the impression the phrase was in widespread and common usage prior to me ever mentioning it. Second, it claims that to get In Rainbows that the "minimum donation" was a penny. Perhaps that's technically true, but the real minimum donation was nothing at all -- and you could still download the album. Bas seems to recognize this, because later in the paper it mentions that many people got the album for free. Overall though, for folks who are paying attention to this stuff, this is a nice summary.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>worth-a-readhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090910/0207016147Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:38:00 PDTRadiohead Leaks Its Own Track To BitTorrent; Apparently Still Happy With 'Free'Mike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090818/0053565911.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090818/0053565911.shtmldebunking on the unsupported idea that just because Radiohead was sick of recording full albums, it somehow meant that the band's business model experiment had been a failure, and that the band did not like using "free" as a part of its business model. Amazingly, the usual cast of characters in our comments continued to insist that Radiohead had clearly learned that "free" doesn't pay. Amusingly, that very same day a "brand new" Radiohead track suddenly appeared on BitTorrent, leading to all sorts of speculation (much of it wrong). But on Monday, the band not only officially released the track for free, but in order to distribute it, it pointed to the very same torrent tracker that had been uploaded last week. In other words, the band leaked its own latest song (for free) via BitTorrent, let the buzz build, and then officially announced the "release" a few days later. But, of course, we're to believe our commenting friends who insist that the band learned that "free" doesn't work?

"There's a process of natural selection going on right now. The music business was waiting to die in its current form about twenty years ago. But then, hallelujah, the CD turned up and kept it going for a bit. But basically, it was dead."

Bingo. The "recording industry" has basically been a "sell plastic discs" industry for way too long, and used the monopoly rents it received from the government to significantly overprice its products, and then lived fat and happy for many years. So, of course, when better, more efficient formats for distribution, recording, promotion and listening came along, it wanted absolutely nothing to do with them, because they didn't present the same sort of monopoly rents.

And, that, of course has been the point we've been trying to make here for quite some time. This has always been a business model issue. The record labels lived off the CD business for so long that it refused to recognize that a better, more efficient system was showing up, because it meant giving up some easy profits.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>quotablehttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090806/1726455790Wed, 6 May 2009 14:04:00 PDTRadiohead's Manager: File Sharing Should Be Legal; It's Great For MusicMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090506/0229264765.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090506/0229264765.shtmlexperiment with letting fans "pay what you want" for its last album, but the band's manager has now said that he thinks file sharing should be legal (sent in by Ruby), noting:

"We believe file-sharing by peer-to-peer should be legalised. The sharing of music where it is not for profit is a great thing for culture and music."

Compare that to, say, Paul McGuinness, the manager of U2, who has been going on and on about how pretty much everyone other than the music industry (i.e., users, ISPs, Apple, software companies) is to blame for file sharing, and they should all be kicked off the internet if they don't pay up.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>so-there-you-gohttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090506/0229264765Mon, 9 Mar 2009 10:17:00 PDTThe Cure's Robert Smith Continues To Claim Free Doesn't WorkMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090305/0146564002.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090305/0146564002.shtmlcouldn't work. This seemed rather odd, given that not only did it work fantastically well for Radiohead, we've been seeing it work for a lot of different bands for many years. So, to claim that it simply can't work was blatantly false and easily proven as wrong. Given that... you might think Robert Smith would recognize the fallacy of his logic, admit he was wrong and maybe learn a little. Or not...

An anonymous reader points us to Smith's blog post in response to the criticism of his statements where he digs in to repeat the original, easily proven as false, claim and calls those who disagree with him "cretins." Or, rather, "CRETINS" since he uses the CAPS LOCK button to full effect (though, appears to have a faulty space bar at times). Oddly, to get around the fact that the model did, in fact, work for Radiohead, he pretends he didn't say that it couldn't work for Radiohead (though, that's exactly what he did say), but claims he actually meant that it couldn't work for everyone else. Then he brushes off Radiohead's success by noting:

ANY FAMOUS ARTIST WITH A HUGE AND DEVOTED FAN BASE(OFTEN ARRIVED AT WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM A WEALTHY AND POWERFUL 'PATRON' ORTWO?) CAN AFFORD TO DO WHAT HE, SHE OR IT WANTS... INCLUDING GIVING THEIR ART AWAY AS SOME KIND OF 'LOSSLEADER' TO HELP 'BUILD THE BRAND'

Masnick's law, anyone? Even that statement is somewhat self-contradictory. If the band is "famous" with a "huge and devoted fan base" then... um... why do they need to "build the brand"?

And, then, of course, he falls into that old fallacy that we see way too often:

IF THIS 'ART FOR FREE' IDEA BECOMES THE CULTURAL NORM THEN HOW DO ARTISTS EARN THEIR LIVING?

It really does amaze me how people's brains seem to stop as soon as "free" enters the picture. But, once again, for you first timers, just because you give one thing away for free, it does not mean you give everything away for free, and thus you earn your living selling those other things. But, of course, apparently anyone who uses logic and understands actual business models doesn't count:

AND QUITE HONESTLY

AS ANYONE THAT DISAGREES WITH THIS POINT

IS UNLIKELY TO BE AN ARTIST

I DONT REALLY CARE TOO MUCH WHAT THEY THINK... !!!

Fair enough. But when plenty of actual artists are understanding this and making plenty of money in doing so, it seems rather silly to ignore the points they're making, doesn't it. Or... wait, is Radiohead not an artist? And, then, there's the final sign off:

I WONDER HOW MANY OF THE PROFESSIONAL APOLOGISTS OUTTHERE WRITE THEIR SHIT FOR FREE?

Well, I don't get paid anything specifically to write this blog. But I do get paid, in part thanks to giving away all this content for free. Just as Smith could get paid by embracing a business model where he gives his music away for free...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>um.-but-it-does?https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090305/0146564002Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:02:50 PSTCure Singer Blasts Radiohead, Saying Name-Your-Own-Price Can't Work; Apparently Unaware That It Did WorkMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090225/0147283894.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090225/0147283894.shtml"give it away and pray" name-your-own-price business model, it still seems pretty ridiculous to see people like The Cure's Robert Smith blasting Radiohead for its experiment, claiming "it can't work" (thanks to Chris, for sending this in). Smith is uninformed on a number of different fronts. First, so many people get so focused on the "name your own price" part, that they forget that wasn't the only business model at all. That was just a part of the business model. At the same time they announced the pay-what-you-want downloads, they alsoannounced an impressive boxset that cost quite a bit. Furthermore, contrary to Smith's assertion that "it can't work," it did work. In fact, it worked phenomenally well. The band sold more albums than it had in the past and it made more money. Actually, as the article points out, that Radiohead album did much, much better than the Cure's last album. Oops.

All of that info came out months ago. Apparently, Smith was too bothered "violently disagreeing" with Radiohead to notice how much money the band was pulling in. He also might want to brush up on his economics. His explanation for disagreeing with Radiohead confuses price and value drastically:

"You can't allow other people to put a price on what you do, otherwise you don't consider what you do to have any value at all and that's nonsense. If I put a value on my music and no one's prepared to pay that, then more fool me, but the idea that the value is created by the consumer is an idiot plan...."

Which, of course, has it backwards. If the music had no value, no one would want it, free or not. And, it's not that fans are "creating the value" in setting the price, it's that they're deciding how much they want to reward the artist. That's all. Perhaps instead of spending so much effort violently disagreeing, Smith should spend some time understanding the actual business models being put to good use by many different musicians, sometimes allowing them to do much better than the Cure... even if the music is "free."

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>it's-not-like-the-info-isn't-out-there...https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090225/0147283894Wed, 22 Oct 2008 05:04:00 PDTCould Radiohead's Success Spell Doom For Music Collective Bargaining?Mike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081020/1129582590.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081020/1129582590.shtmlsuccessful. However, a couple of readers sent in an article at The Register, which looked into Radiohead's success, and concluded that musicians shouldn't be happy about it, because Radiohead's success may destroy their "hard-fought" collective bargaining arrangements.

There is some amount of truth in this, but it shouldn't be seen as a bad thing for musicians. Part of Radiohead's success was that it, indeed, was able to get certain royalty collections groups to effectively "bend the rules" for the experiment. The Register seems to argue that this is a bad thing, as it will destroy the validity of those royalty groups. However, that's not a bad thing for musicians at all. We've already explained why we think compulsory licenses are a bad idea, creating a bureaucratic nightmare where only the lawyers really benefit. More importantly, they serve as a complex patchwork system to guarantee an old and obsolete business model -- which is why Radiohead had to work around them. Because of this, you get various collections societies making ridiculous claims about representing artists, when some artists don't agree with their stance at all. Yet, because it's "compulsory" many artists have no choice.

Cracking the legitimacy of these royalty collecting societies isn't damaging to musicians. It's just the first step in helping them to embrace much better business models.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>well,-not-really...https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081020/1129582590Thu, 16 Oct 2008 05:46:00 PDTDetails Released On The Radiohead Experiment Results: A Tremendous SuccessMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081015/1640202552.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081015/1640202552.shtmlvery open in discussing the results of his various business model experiments, Radiohead has been notoriously quiet about it -- leading some to falsely assume that the experiment was a failure. CNN even called it one of the dumbest moments in business last year. That seemed ridiculous on its face, as it was quite clear that the experiment was a huge success for Radiohead, even if the band was quiet about the numbers. However, Radiohead's publisher has now come out and revealed some of the numbers and debunked the myth that the experiment was a failure (thanks to SteveD for sending this over). Instead, it turns out that Radiohead made much more money from this experiment than from their previous album. The band's music was spread much more widely than previous albums, with over 1.75 million physical albums sold (and that's not counting all of the paid downloads) -- as compared to its previous albums, which all sold in the hundreds of thousands. About the only downside to the experiment was that the band found itself talking about the experiment more than the music.

Now, of course, some will point out that this experiment isn't very representative, because Radiohead got a huge boost by being the first high profile band to do this. And that's absolutely true. But that doesn't mean the business model doesn't work at a more reasonable level. Obviously, Radiohead got a big boost from doing something unique and different, but that just gives other bands reasons to look at not just copying Radiohead, but adding more unique offerings themselves. That's how business models innovate, by trying out new stuff and trying to attract attention. Unfortunately, though, we still have big record labels who think business model innovation is having Congress protect your old business model.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>good-for-themhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081015/1640202552Thu, 9 Oct 2008 00:32:47 PDTCan 'Pay What You Want' Work Outside Of The Music Industry?Kevin Donovanhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081008/0723372489.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081008/0723372489.shtmloffering its album for free and asking fans to pay what they want. Contrary to the guffaws of many, the experiment turned out to be a smart decision which was quickly copied by other musicians. Now, we're starting to see other industries try the "pay what you want" model.

First, Good Magazine began allowing their subscribers to pay any value more than a dollar. Now, the Free Culture 2008 conference, headlined by Stanford's Larry Lessig, John Lilly of Mozilla and Pam Samuelson of Berkeley Law, is using the model. The organizers have implemented a "pay what you want" model for registration and, contrary to the myths of traditional economics, people aren't choosing to pay $0.00. In fact, with more than 200 registered attendees, the average price paid has been more than $20. As more and more examples of this style pop up, it becomes more and more obvious that new, hybrid business models will become widespread and sustainable.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>who's-nexthttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081008/0723372489Mon, 6 Oct 2008 03:59:00 PDTMusicians Realize They Need Their Own Lobbying GroupMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081005/2310512458.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081005/2310512458.shtmlforming their own lobbying/bargaining group, called the Featured Artists' Coalition. One of the goals, actually, is to put pressure on the record labels to allow the musicians to retain the copyright on their music, rather than handing it over to the labels. At the very least, it ought to be interesting to see the two of them fight this out. Though, my fear is that this new group really just promotes more of the same, and doesn't focus on new business model opportunities, but again looks for ways to "protect" rather than to innovate.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>but-will-it-be-more-of-the-same?https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081005/2310512458Fri, 20 Jun 2008 19:11:00 PDTLess Well Known Musicians Embracing 'Pay What You Want'Mike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080620/1132211463.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080620/1132211463.shtmlless well known musicians embracing these kinds of new business models, critics would complain that they might work for unknown musicians who have "nothing to lose" and need attention more than anything else, but it would never ever work for a big star who has too much to lose. Then, of course, we talked about big time musicians like Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails embracing these kinds of models, and the critics said "well, sure, it works for them with their well recognized name, but it would never work for unknown artists." Hell, someone said that just yesterday in response to a post here, leading another commenter to jokingly (I hope) coin the phrase "Masnick's Law", which is loosely defined as

"in any conversation about musicians doing something different to achieve fame and/or fortune someone will inevitably attempt to make the argument that 'it only worked for them because they are big/small and it will never work for someone who is the opposite,' no matter how much evidence to the contrary might be readily available."

I might expand on that definition a bit to have it go beyond just big/small. People will keep looking for excuses why each example is an exception, (big/small just being an easy such reason) to the point that they'll eventually miss the fact that all of those exceptions are the rule.

Anyway, based on all of this, it will be interesting to see how Girl Talk's new album does. Girl Talk is a one man DJ once mentioned (positively) in Congress as an example of why traditional copyright laws might not make sense anymore. With the release of his latest album, he's decided to use a Radiohead-style model, with a few improvements. That is, rather than just a pure "give it away and pray," he's giving people an additional reason to buy -- though I think he could still put together a better model. His is set up so you can pay what you want (including nothing at all) and get 320 kbps MP3 files, but if you pay over $5, he offers FLAC files as well, and at $10 you'll also get a copy of the physical CD when it comes out. If you pay $0, he does ask that you fill out a little survey explaining why. There still are some problems with this model (it's still a little too much like a give it away and pray model), but overall, it's quite similar to Radiohead's experiment.

Now, of course, all the folks who insisted that Radiohead's model would never work for a relatively obscure musician are supposed to now insist that this model won't work at all for Girl Talk, right? But what happens if Girl Talk is actually happy with the results, whether in direct payment amounts or in the fact that it gets him more publicity? Will they finally admit that the model isn't just an exception?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>small-musicians,-big-musicians-alikehttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080620/1132211463Thu, 19 Jun 2008 04:04:00 PDTNow Gene Simmons Is Blaming Radiohead For Killing The Recording IndustryMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080617/2333571437.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080617/2333571437.shtmlexplanation for why the RIAA should be suing even more people to stop the evils of file sharing. There were all sorts of problems with it -- and when the interviewer pointed to the success stories of Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails, Simmons brushed them off as being not worth commenting on because they were "exceptions" rather than business models that work. Of course, if it were just an exception, then it wouldn't be much of a problem, but as a few folks have sent in, it appears that Simmons is increasingly upset with Radiohead, suggesting that its "exception" is helping to destroy the industry. He seems to be skipping over the part where Radiohead made a ton of money from its "exception."

It's difficult to see how an example of a way to make a lot of money could possibly be killing an industry -- unless Simmons is defining the "industry" so narrowly to only include the selling of plastic discs with music. And, of course, after blaming Radiohead, he turns on the real problem: those darn fans: "The record industry is dead. It's six feet underground and unfortunately the fans have done this." Always a winning strategy: blame your biggest fans for your own inability to embrace a business model that makes sense to them.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>while-making-money-for-themselveshttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080617/2333571437Thu, 12 Jun 2008 22:22:00 PDTEven Lawyers Are Confused About What's Legal Or Not In The Prince/Radiohead SpatMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080610/1651401368.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080610/1651401368.shtmlstretched and twisted so many times that it really just isn't designed properly to handle internet communications -- and a good case in point may be the funny little spat we covered a few weeks back between Prince and Radiohead. If you don't recall, Prince performed a cover of a Radiohead song at a concert. Someone in the audience videotaped it and put the video on YouTube. Prince's representatives demanded that the content be taken down under a DMCA request -- raising all sorts of questions. After all, Prince didn't own the copyright on the song. That's owned by Radiohead, whose lead singer wanted the video back online. Prince didn't own the copyright to the video either, since he didn't take it. So how could he use the DMCA to take down the video?

But, it's not that simple, apparently. As Ethan Ackerman details, as lawyers began to think about the situation, the more confused they got, noting that maybe there was a right under anti-bootlegging laws. Only, then things got more confusing, because it turns out that anti-bootlegging laws aren't actually a part of the copyright act (though it does fall under the same "title" just to add to the confusion), and the DMCA (under which the takedown occurred) only applies to copyright law.

However, again, we're left in a situation where the "law" is hardly clear at all, and even those who follow the space were somewhat confused over whether or not Prince had any sort of legal standing here. A law is not useful if the boundaries of that law are not clear, and if someone has no clue if their actions go against the law. In the internet era, copyright certainly falls under that category of laws in which it is no longer clear what is and is not legal -- and that should be seen as a problem.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>wait-a-second...https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080610/1651401368Fri, 30 May 2008 16:47:50 PDTPrince And Radiohead Fight Over YouTube SongMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080530/1507241271.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080530/1507241271.shtmlposter child for "getting" the internet and new media distribution opportunities. He experimented with a variety of different creative business models that suggested he got how the economics of music worked these days. It was working too -- with his efforts to give away his music helping him sell out concert after concert around the world. But then something changed, and Prince went ballistic, suing YouTube, The Pirate Bay and eBay and even threatening fan sites while demanding that even videos with tiny snippets of Prince music in the background get taken offline. The whole thing is quite surprising, and if he keeps this up, he's risking taking all that goodwill he built up for years, and turning himself into another Metallica. Becoming anti-fan is never a good idea.

The latest story, though, has a twist. Prince apparently did a cover of a Radiohead song at a recent concert. Someone filmed it and put the video on YouTube. Given his newfound hatred for YouTube, Prince demanded that the song be taken down. And here's where it gets interesting: Radiohead's Thom Yorke is demanding that it be put back online, noting that he owns the copyright on the song: "Really? He's blocked it?... Well, tell him to unblock it. It's our ... song." Of course, as that LA Times report notes, in true Streisand Effect fashion, the effort to take down the song has only driven much more interest in people trying to find the song. If Prince weren't suing so many people, you might even think he was canny enough to have done this on purpose as a marketing campaign.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>this-is-what-it's-come-to?https://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080530/1507241271Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:44:04 PDTDon't Read Too Much Into Radiohead's Claim That It Won't Offer Music For Free AgainMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080430/172628986.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080430/172628986.shtmlwon't do a promotion giving away free music again. Some are using this to suggest the model was a failure or that those of us who recognize the clear economic trends toward free music were somehow wrong. That's not the case at all. Early on Yorke had admitted that there was no large theory behind the decision to do the name your own price offering. One of the band's managers suggested it and the group went with it as a publicity stunt -- which worked. The fact that the band then pulled down the download offering prior to releasing the actual CD confirmed that the band merely viewed the free offering as a stunt, rather than part of a larger strategy. As such, it's not at all surprising that Yorke would say the band won't do it again. Since they only viewed it as a stunt, repeating the stunt doesn't make sense. They'll come up with some other stunt for the next release. That doesn't, however, mean that the idea was wrong or a failure. Just that the band wants its publicity stunts to be new and different each time. The fact that this most recent one tapped into an obvious trend seems to have been more of a lucky guess than the sign of a well-thought out strategy. The good news is that it's made plenty of others start to realize the power of free music -- even if that line of thought hasn't permeated back to Radiohead and Yorke.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>just-wait-and-seehttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080430/172628986Wed, 2 Apr 2008 11:51:00 PDTRadiohead: Pay Us For A Chance To Make Our Songs BetterMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080402/102043729.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080402/102043729.shtmlname your own price download offering was suggested by the band's manager just before they put the album online. They didn't really think it through, they just did it. And, since then, it's been clear that the band doesn't quite grasp the wider economics of what it's doing. It never made sense for the band to get rid of the download offering, but it did. And now, the band is getting some publicity for asking its fans to remix a new single from the band, apparently a song the band has struggled to complete for quite a while. However, the details are anything but fan friendly. Fans are asked to buy the five separate tracks (bass, voice, guitar, strings/effects and drums) and only once all five have been bought are they given access to a program to mix the tracks. And, as a bunch of readers have sent in, the terms are not particularly friendly -- basically saying that the fans have no rights whatsoever, Radiohead gets everything and no one should expect any prizes for participating. In other words, this is Radiohead getting fans to pay the band to do its work.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>not-that-appealinghttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080402/102043729Tue, 8 Jan 2008 08:45:00 PSTRadiohead's Physical Album Selling WellMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080107/191334.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080107/191334.shtmlbeginning that the "name your own price" download offering was part of a promotional campaign to get more people to buy the physical CD. And buy it, they are. Apparently, the physical Radiohead CD is topping the charts in the UK -- and I'd bet that an awful lot of those buyers also downloaded the music first (whether for free or not). While we still don't understand what benefit there was to closing down the download offering, it's hard to see how anyone can still claim that the promotional blitz was a dumb idea. Obviously, Radiohead would have received plenty of attention just for releasing an album. But, in doing it this way, Radiohead got even more publicity, and were able to do it for almost no promotional costs. So, even if Radiohead's lead singer actually is accusing his internet fans of being "sad loners," it appears that Radiohead's internet experiment has been quite a success.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>good-for-themhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080107/191334Wed, 19 Dec 2007 07:06:00 PSTDavid Byrne Breaks Down New Business Models For Musicians; Confirms Radiohead's SuccessMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071219/012553.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071219/012553.shtmlinterview with Thom Yorke from Radiohead, where he confirms what a huge success the "name your own price" offering was, contrary to CNN's editors calling it dumb. According to Yorke: "In terms of digital income, we've made more money out of this record than out of all the other Radiohead albums put together, forever." Yorke also confirms other things that we've said about new business models, where touring can be a big part of the model (contrary to people who insist that's impossible). Yorke notes: "at the moment we make money principally from touring." Yorke admits that he's not a fan of touring (partly for ecological reasons), but that's how the band makes money (this is similar to what we've heard from other bands as well). So, again, given all the publicity around the "name your own price" deal (which Yorke admits they basically tried on a lark and only agreed to it right before announcing it), it should pay off well with more people willing to pay more money to see the band on tour. The one thing Yorke says that I disagree with is the idea that the model only works for Radiohead due to its following. As we've pointed out, most of the examples of bands successfully trying similar models involve much less well known acts. In fact, Byrne himself later points to the success of Jane Siberry, who tried a name your own price model years before Radiohead, and certainly didn't have the same huge following, but found that the model was quite successful.

The second article is by Byrne himself, where he does a nice job breaking down the business models of the recording industry. Much of what he says will sound familiar to folks around here, though he adds in some interesting numbers concerning how much a musician makes per CD and per iTunes download (it's not much). He points out that the value proposition of a record label is decreasing rapidly as areas where they used to be needed (money for recording, promotion and distribution) are approaching free in cost, meaning the labels provide little, if any, value on those points. He then lists out what he believes are the six business models a musician can adopt these days, noting that it's nice to see more than just a single option. This highlights another point we've tried to make: the new business models for the music industry mean that there isn't just one business model for every musician. In fact, just about every successful new business model we see is slightly different -- though most pick up on some important economic cues. The one problem I have with Byrne's explanation is that it still mainly focuses on one thing: how do you sell the music itself. This comes even after he talks about how the idea of selling music is only a recent phenomenon, and historically, music was always tied to the performance itself. The less bands focus on "selling music" and the more they focus on using the music to sell other stuff, the faster a path to success will become clear.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>changing-worldhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071219/012553Tue, 18 Dec 2007 05:21:00 PSTGetting Millions Of People Listening To Your Music, With Many Giving You Money Voluntarily, Is Dumb?Mike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071217/135346.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071217/135346.shtmlKarl writes in to point out that on Fortune/CNN's somewhat bizarre list of 101 Dumbest Moments in Business, number 59 is about Radiohead's decision to offer a name-your-own-price offering for its downloaded music. As CNN notes, "Can't wait for the follow-up album, 'In Debt." Ha ha. It then quotes the disputed Comscore numbers, suggesting that since only 38% of downloaders agreed to pay anything for the album, this is somehow a dumb move. I would argue that the only thing "dumb" here is the inclusion of this move on the list. CNN seems to think that Radiohead expected everyone to pay for the album, when even the band has clearly stated that this was a promotional move. Is CNN "dumb" for putting this article online for free? Of course not -- because they make money through other means, such as advertising. In the same way, Radiohead did quite well even if people downloaded the album for free. After all, even if the Comscore numbers are accurate, Radiohead still pulled in millions, distributed millions of tracks to fans all over the world with no promotional budget, got its name and its music talked about around the globe and found at the top of popular playlists everywhere, and got a tremendous amount of free advertising for its upcoming tour and CD box sets. Can you name a single band in the world that would turn that down? Hell, can you name a single Fortune/CNN editor who would turn that down if he were in Radiohead's shoes? Not unless he was pretty dumb. In fact, if Radiohead did anything dumb it was shutting off the download site.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>please-explainhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071217/135346Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:54:24 PSTThe Second Stage Of The Radiohead ExperimentMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071211/004849.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071211/004849.shtmlwritten about Radiohead's experiments with new business models, but it's starting to crank up again, as the band gets ready to release the new album on CD. While some fans felt "betrayed" by this, the band had made it quite clear from the beginning that this was the strategy. However, it's likely that we'll now see plenty of stories focused on how well the CD sells, as if that will be the key factor in determining whether or not this experiment qualifies as a "success."

That, however, is the wrong way to look at things. It's the "old business model" way of looking at things, where the key point is how many CDs were sold. That's doesn't much matter any more. The band has supposedly made quite a lot of money from selling the MP3s directly, and the attention garnered by the marketing stunt will likely allow them to sell more concert tickets at higher prices (and, yes, the band is about to start touring). Plenty of people who knew little about the band now know a lot more and are talking about and listening to the new album. At this point, no matter what happens with the CD, you'd have to say that the experiment has been quite a success.

That said, it doesn't appear as though the band fully embraces the economics impacting the music industry these days. That's because the band has decided to stop offering the downloads off its site as it gears up to try to sell the CDs. That seems like a rather pointless and shortsighted move. The music is already out there and being listened to widely. If you look on sites like Last.fm and Hype Machine, Radiohead clearly dominates. Continuing to offer fans an option in terms of how they want to consume and purchase the music only makes sense. It's not as if the music is suddenly not going to be available on various file sharing sites. So, really, all this move does is limit the ways fans can give the band money -- and that doesn't make much sense.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>some-good,-some-badhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071211/004849Tue, 13 Nov 2007 13:12:36 PSTCalling Competition A 'Race To The Bottom' Won't Make It Go AwayTimothy Leehttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071112/230337.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071112/230337.shtml"race to the bottom" with its name-your-price experiment. There are a couple of big problems with the article. In the first place, Rosenblatt tries to paint the experiment as a failure, but the facts don't support his conclusion. Rosenblatt seems horrified by the fact that 62 percent of downloaders paid nothing, and the remaining 38 percent paid about $6 per album. But that works out to $2.28 per person, which, according to some back-of-the-envelope math by Luis Villa, is right about the average royalty for a major-label CD. If Radiohead got roughly the same amount of money, and got a ton of free publicity in the process, that sounds like a smart move to me. And most likely, this reasoning understates Radiohead's revenues, for two reasons. First, a lot of the people who downloaded without paying probably wouldn't have bought an album anyway. And second, Radiohead has signalled that the comScore statistics Rosenblatt is using are inaccurate. So the results may actually be even more favorable for Radiohead than Rosenblatt's numbers suggest.

But the strangest thing about Rosenblatt's article is the pejorative use of the term "race to the bottom" to describe competition in the music industry. When Apple cuts the price on the iPod, we would be really surprised to see a columnist complaining about how Apple had started a "race to the bottom" that will undermine profits among consumer electronics companies. We understand that, as painful as competition can be for producers, consumers and the economy as a whole benefit from such aggressive price-cutting. Talking about a "race to the bottom" is the language of cartels, which try to hold prices above the competitive level. Music is like any other product As the marginal costs of production and distribution fall, it's natural that the price of music will fall as well. Smart musicians and companies will find ways to adapt and prosper in the new, more competitive marketplace. As we've said before, saying you can't compete with free is saying you can't compete at all. The sooner musicians and record labels realize that, the more prepared they'll be when the price of music drops out from under them.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>it's-called-competitionhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071112/230337Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:38:00 PDTTrent Reznor Explains Why OiNK Was CoolMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071031/040022.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071031/040022.shtmlinteresting things lately in trying to embrace file sharing and free music in a way that still makes business sense. It sounds like he's open to plenty of new ideas as well. A few people wrote in last week when it was announced that in collaborating with musician Saul Williams, the two decided to follow Radiohead's path and offer a new album with a "name your own price" system. They admitted that they had been toying with the idea, but once Radiohead did it, they figured why not do the same thing (how long until someone who is confused about how this all works accuses them of "stealing" the idea?).

However, what's much more interesting is that in a NY Mag interview with Reznor and Williams, Reznor admits that he was an active member of OiNK, the file sharing site that was recently shut down, and then gives an eloquent explanation for why OiNK exists and why iTunes sucks. It's not about "stealing," even though Reznor does refer to it as stealing. It's about people who love music:

"I'll admit I had an account there and frequented it quite often. At the end of the day, what made OiNK a great place was that it was like the world's greatest record store. Pretty much anything you could ever imagine, it was there, and it was there in the format you wanted. If OiNK cost anything, I would certainly have paid, but there isn't the equivalent of that in the retail space right now. iTunes kind of feels like Sam Goody to me. I don't feel cool when I go there. I'm tired of seeing John Mayer's face pop up. I feel like I'm being hustled when I visit there, and I don't think their product is that great. DRM, low bit rate, etc. Amazon has potential, but none of them get around the issue of pre-release leaks. And that's what's such a difficult puzzle at the moment. If your favorite band in the world has a leaked record out, do you listen to it or do you not listen to it? People on those boards, they're grateful for the person that uploaded it -- they're the hero. They're not stealing it because they're going to make money off of it; they're stealing it because they love the band. I'm not saying that I think OiNK is morally correct, but I do know that it existed because it filled a void of what people want."

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]>filling-a-voidhttps://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071031/040022Tue, 23 Oct 2007 07:04:00 PDTRadiohead's Marketing Ploy Not A Stunt; Just Good BusinessMike Masnickhttps://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071022/011057.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071022/011057.shtmlplans to offer name-your-own-price downloads, the band's manager said in an interview with the Financial Times that they were doing so in order to boost CD sales. For some odd reason, this statement has apparently pissed off a bunch of people who keep submitting the FT article over and over again for weeks to say that Radiohead's decision is now suspect. However, that doesn't make any sense. As we said when Radiohead first made the announcement, it was clear from the beginning that they were trying to give them reasons to buy the CD. It wasn't a bait and switch situation at all, as they were quite upfront about it. It also isn't a bad thing. It shows the band is doing exactly what the economics suggests it should be doing: using the infinite goods (the music) to help make the scarce goods (CDs) more valuable. The band never said you had to buy the CD. It just said that you can pay what you want (including nothing at all) while also making it clear that the CD was going to be a lot more valuable to own. That seems like a smart business move. About the only mistake in there seems to be that the band accidentally made people think that it was somehow against selling CDs, even though it was clear from the beginning that the band still wanted to sell a CD version and make it worth owning.